Search AlienVault OTX threat pulses by keyword to identify related tags, malware families, and IOC counts for threat intelligence investigations.
Search AlienVault OTX threat pulses by keyword. Returns matching pulses with tags, malware families, and IOC counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 10) | |
| query | Yes | Search query |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context by disclosing the return shape — tags, malware families, IOC counts — which matters because no output schema exists. It omits rate limits, pagination, and auth requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, zero filler, with the action and scope front-loaded ahead of the return summary. Every clause earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and return fields adequately, and annotations carry the safety profile. Minor gaps remain around result ordering and whether `limit` truncates silently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both `query` and `limit` documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'by keyword' adds slight clarity on how `query` is matched but no syntax, operators, or formatting guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (search) and resource (AlienVault OTX threat pulses) scoped by keyword, which clearly distinguishes it from the indicator-lookup siblings otx_ip/otx_domain/otx_hash/otx_cve. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast the two modes, so it stops short of the top tier.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this when you have a keyword rather than an indicator. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, and no prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.